A Serious Climate Opportunity
by Greg Walcher
For years,
politicians have waged war on coal, stifled oil and gas production, and
advocated carbon taxes and other extreme measures to reduce carbon
dioxide, while ignoring one of the most important things they could do
to help. It reminds me of my own lifelong battle with weight and the
associated health issues. I get so frustrated that I sometimes swear I
would do anything – anything! – to lose weight. Well, anything except
eat less and exercise. But anything else.
That same kind of
hypocrisy rants about our carbon dioxide emissions. Its adherents drive
cars, heat their homes, and sometimes even turn on lights. A popular
bumper sticker screams, “TREES ARE THE ANSWER.” Yet when it comes to
managing our national forests, many of those same advocates look away
while millions of acres of once healthy trees die, fall down, rot, and
burn up. It is ironic because those forests provide the world’s greatest
resource for cleaning carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
As
Colorado State Forester Mike Lester testified last week, “When so many
trees die and large wildfires follow, our forests quickly turn from a
carbon sink into a carbon source.” Trees absorb carbon dioxide as people
absorb oxygen, and that balance is critical to sustaining life, as we
all learned in grade school. Yet instead of doing everything in our
power to make sure there are thriving forests of healthy trees, we allow
them to die and burn and thus belch millions of tons of carbon dioxide
into the air.
Lester’s excellent testimony, before a joint state
legislative committee, accompanied the release of the annual Report on
the Health of Colorado Forests. This year’s report, compiled by the
Colorado State Forest Service, is the worst ever, and hardly anybody
noticed. There was no outcry from global warming alarmists around the
world, as there should have been. In fact, their silence on this issue
is deafening.
The more concerned people are about climate change,
the more they should be interested in active management to restore
forest health. Yet many of the groups pushing urgent climate policies
are the same groups that continue to fight logging, thinning, and other
management necessary for healthy forests. The result is more of the same
disaster we have seen unfolding for over 20 years: dead and dying
forests, catastrophic wildfires, habitat devastation, loss of property
and lives, and destruction of wildlife.
The new forest health
report shows that over the last seven years, the number of dead standing
trees in Colorado forests increased almost 30 percent, to an estimated
834 million dead trees. There are billions across millions of acres in
the other Rocky Mountain states. The report makes clear that this
continuing trend of tree mortality can lead to large, intense wildfires.
In fact, it is only a matter of time if the Forest Service does not
act. Ironically, the most productive forest health restoration
projects in our State have been partnerships of the State Forester with
water providers like Denver Water, Northern Water Conservancy District,
and Colorado Springs Utilities. That’s because 80 percent of Colorado’s
population depends on water that comes from the national forests. But
the U.S. Forest Service, which owns almost all of the forestland in the
State, continues to work with its hands tied behind its back, its timber
programs woefully underfunded and vast sums syphoned off every year for
fire suppression. That ought to be funded separately, so that active
management of healthy forests is not the perpetual lowest priority. The
agency spends a fortune on planning, writing reports, and defending
itself against environmental lawsuits.
What a golden opportunity
for a new Administration and a new Congress. Reversing this demoralizing
trend would restore forests, bring back thousands of forest products
jobs, revitalize rural economies, and do more to reduce carbon dioxide
than any previous policy. The last Administration created the Office of
Sustainability and Climate Change, and Regional Climate Change Hubs,
maintained a Climate Change Adaptation Library, mapped drought frequency
and intensity, and created massive reports. One was a vulnerability
assessment for the Southwest and California, titled “Southwest Regional
Climate Hub and Climate Subsidiary Hub Assessment of Climate Change
Vulnerability and Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies.”
All this
activity is impressive, and scientific study will always play a role.
But none of it actually affects climate change. Growing healthy trees
would. Can we get back to that? Or like me and my weight problem, are we
willing to do anything to address climate change, except the one thing
that might help the most?
No comments:
Post a Comment